EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIMS OF: CASE NO.
Anthony Corrigan -claimant UD598/2012
WT187/2012
against
Northern Trust Management Services (Ireland) Limited -respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr C. Corcoran BL
Members: Mr E. Handley
Mr J. Maher
heard these claims at Dublin on 18 July 2013
and 5 & 11 February 2014
Representation:
_______________
Claimant: In Person
Respondent: Ms Rosemary Mallon B.L. instructed by Ms Elizabeth Ryan,
Mason Hayes & Curran, Solicitors, South Bank House,
Barrow Street, Dublin 4
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:
The claimant was employed by the respondent financial institution from August 2007. In July 2009 he was promoted to the position of Vice President of Compliance within the Dublin operation of respondent covering, in particular, the respondent’s European, Middle East and Asia (EMEA) operations. The claimant’s particular area of operation was in terms of monitoring and testing (M&T). He was one of five employees based in Dublin on compliance issues.
Following the acquisition of certain operations from a pillar bank the need for rationalisation led to a series of collective redundancies being implemented within the respondent’s operations in and around July 2011. On 20 July 2011 the claimant was advised that his position was not in danger of being declared redundant even though some of those to whom he reported had their positions declared redundant.
It was the claimant’s position that he received a performance appraisal rating of 5, the maximum, for the first half of 2011 in August 2011. Following the collective redundancies, as a result of which the claimant now reported to different members of management, the claimant was informed on 10 October 2011 that, from 12 November 2011, he was to be placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP).
The claimant’s position was that on 3 November 2011 he partook in a conference call in involving his superior, who was based in London, in which he sought to challenge the legitimacy of the PIP.
Later on during 3 November 2011 a human resource consultant (HR) of the respondent contacted the claimant to advise him that his position had provisionally been selected for redundancy and that a period of consultation on the matter had begun. The claimant was given the option of taking gardening leave immediately prior to any decision being taken on his proposed selection for redundancy.
The respondent’s position was that they had four employees in London engaged in M&T work as well as another, also selected for redundancy, in the Channel Islands. The claimant had only been spending somewhat less than a day a week on M&T and that work was henceforth done by those staff based in London.
On 16 November 2011 HR again met the claimant and confirmed that his position was redundant. The claimant received three months’ pay as an ex-gratia payment in addition to his statutory redundancy entitlement and was required to not attend work from 16 November.
The claimant appealed selection for redundancy and this appeal was heard on 8 December 2011 by the Senior VP for Specialist Project Management in company with the VP Senior HR consultant. The claimant was accompanied by his solicitor. After an exchange of correspondence to clarify certain matters arising the claimant was advised of the rejection of his appeal on 19 January 2012.
On 25 July 2012 the respondent advertised for a compliance officer based in Limerick; a role not dissimilar to the claimant’s.
Determination
Whilst the Tribunal is satisfied that a genuine redundancy situation pertained in the M&T function across various locations of the respondent’s operations it is not satisfied that the claimant’s selection as a candidate for redundancy was fair. The claimant was one of five employees in Dublin in the compliance area and no consideration was given to conducting an objective assessment amongst those staff. The officer who was involved in the claimant going into a PIP was also involved in his selection for redundancy and did not give evidence before the Tribunal. However there was a high degree of contribution on the claimant’s part and the Tribunal does not accept that the claimant fully mitigated his loss.
In those circumstances the Tribunal find that the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 succeeds and finds that an award of €25,000 is just and equitable.
The claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 is dismissed.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)